New NICS Law No Better Than Old Law


PDA






ConstitutionCowboy
June 16, 2007, 10:52 AM
The new "NICS Improvement Act", HR 2640 (http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3112), regardless of the "improvements" it brings to the NICS system is still as unconstitutional as the NICS system(Brady Law) because it is further action by Congress thinking it can govern something it has been specifically forbidden to govern in the Constitution by the Second Amendment thereto.

The only constitutional way to keep arms out of the hands of those who cannot be trusted with arms is to keep those people locked up or executed for their crimes, institutionalized, or under full time guardianship.

I think this whole Brady Bull, and law such as the NFA and its followups should be repealed in stead of "improved". It should be hammered with as much scrutiny as the bogus "Amnesty" bill now being toyed with in the Senate. All of it is just plain wrong!

Woody

Be careful who you choose to stand behind and support. If you are unwilling to take care of yourself, you must take what comes along. I've yet to see a flock of sheep, no matter how well cared for and tended, that doesn't get fleeced from time to time and eventually end up on the dinner table. Not many sheep die a natural death. B.E. Wood

If you enjoyed reading about "New NICS Law No Better Than Old Law" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
HardKnox
June 16, 2007, 10:59 AM
wow, thats a GREAT idea!!








how do we convince the rest of america that machine guns are good and bg checks are bad...?

ConstitutionCowboy
June 16, 2007, 11:16 AM
how do we convince the rest of america that machine guns are good and bg checks are bad...?

With all the violent criminals locked up or dead, the mentally incapable institutionalized, and a little parenting, who needs background checks in the first place? Then there is the Second Amendment, don't forget!

It isn't about machine guns being good or bad, its about who is free to misuse them.

Woody

HardKnox
June 16, 2007, 11:35 AM
dont get me wrong here, I fully believe in abolishing bg checks and repealing all of the gun control laws, i just dont see how the general population could see it our way, except for tiny little baby steps to get it our way, just like how the gun control lobby used tiny baby steps to get it thier way.

Lone_Gunman
June 16, 2007, 11:51 AM
With all the violent criminals locked up or dead, the mentally incapable institutionalized, and a little parenting, who needs background checks in the first place?

Thats going to cost a lot of money. Are you sure you want to pay for that? You won't have much of a gun budget after you pay your taxes, I am afraid.

Old Fuff
June 16, 2007, 12:11 PM
woodcdi:

You have a right to your opinion of course, as we all do.

But frankly, it doesn't matter. :what:

What does matter is what the courts say, especially the U.S. Supreme Court, and they have carefully avoided the issue since the 1930's.

Now we have made some progress, as a Federal Appeals Court ruled in a Washington DC case the 2nd. Amendment does protect an individual's right to own a firearm - but at the same time they said that “reasonable” laws could restrict this “right”. It is expected that if this is appealed to the Supreme Court this interpretation - one way or another - will stand.

As a practical matter this can only be changed if the voters in this country elect a very conservative government, that remains in office long enough to place equally conservative individuals on the Supreme Court, as well as lower ones.

Right now that doesn't seem likely...

But this doesn't mean you’re wrong, or can't rant. It does mean that you're not likely to see things going your way.

ConstitutionCowboy
June 16, 2007, 01:33 PM
dont get me wrong here, I fully believe in abolishing bg checks and repealing all of the gun control laws, i just dont see how the general population could see it our way, except for tiny little baby steps to get it our way, just like how the gun control lobby used tiny baby steps to get it thier way.

Again, it isn't about "their" way or "our" way. It's about how the Constitution says it's supposd to be. The "their" way and "our" way arguments can be discussed to the end of time. The only thing that hasn't and won't change is the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Push for abiding the Constitution. Back it up with your arguments as well, but don't forget to back your arguments up with the law of the land.

All the pessimism in the world will get you nowhere. All that grovelling will get you is the lower hand and all we get are patches to their law, their law never goes away, and they continue to hold the upper hand.

Woody

Knucklehead2
June 16, 2007, 01:50 PM
Woody, Alan Korwin has a good piece about the bill, Homeland Security will be involved in the process when this bill passes.
http://www.gunlaws.com/newstuff.htm
To the well meaning folks who believe this bill will only effect someone else, and that the 700,000 denied purchase through NICS are criminals, I think some more thought is in order.

stellarpod
June 16, 2007, 02:03 PM
WoodCDI stated:

The only thing that hasn't and won't change is the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Push for abiding the Constitution. Back it up with your arguments as well, but don't forget to back your arguments up with the law of the land.

Actually, the law - or "law of the land" - will ALWAYS be open to interpretation. And the enforcement of any law will always be determined by the current interpretation as stated by whatever judicial bench is currently sitting.

Those who proclaim the simple logic of my interpretation is the ONLY interpretation and should prevail always remind me of the "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it" crowd. That's fine, but you will NEVER convert a non-believer with that argument. If your intent is to simply define your opinion on a law, then that mentality is all you need. BUT, if your intent is to convert, then you're going to have to lead the unbelievers into your fold step by step.

Bearing in mind that not all people see things through the same prism that we do, we should all be called upon to use an evangelistic zeal to bring people into the fold. We will not succeed without doing so. In other words, we educate the masses and then use the democratic process to elect officials and nominate judicial placements that reflect our values. But understand - it is unlikely that we will ever find politicians who completely fulfill our needs - at least one that's electable in today's world. That's why we must choose our battles wisely and think strategically rather than always considering short-term tactics.

The only alternative to this is armed insurrection. And, all false-bravado aside, I don't think that's the alternative that any of us want.

stellarpod

yokel
June 16, 2007, 02:59 PM
Pie-in-the-sky to be sure, but how about several million gun owners collectively flaunting the nonconstitutional rules in order to force concessions from the govt?:p

jselvy
June 16, 2007, 03:25 PM
I distrust any legislation that apparently does nothing new. But then again I'm a strct constructionist and a raving paranoid

Jefferson

ConstitutionCowboy
June 17, 2007, 12:17 AM
I'm not looking for "Pie in the Sky", or to debate whose "interpretation" is "correct" or if it is in fact an interpretation or the plain simple straightforward truth of what the Second Amendment says. I'm not about "converting non-believers" or winning over "fence sitters". I'm about the defeat of those who intentionally subvert the purpose of, misconstrue, and over-analyze; and then misdirect the purpose of the Second Amendment, and to what the Second Amendment directs its dictate.

Who here can deny that the bottom line of the Second Amendment is that "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? It isn't saying that to the people, is it? No. It's telling that to government. It's not a promise from the government that our right will not be infringed. It's a dictate to the government not to infringe upon the right. It makes no exception for the "Commerce Clause" to be used to infringe the right. It makes no allowance for what might be considered "reasonable restrictions". It says nothing about any requirement that an arm must be suitable for militia use, nor does it contain any test parameters to such an end. Whether you vaporize the brains of your adversary with a death ray, or empty your bladder and he slips in the puddle and cracks his skull open on the floor doesn't matter. An arm is an arm.

The Second Amendment grants no power to government. Therefore, no misconstrual, "interpretation", or supposition can logically be taken from that Amendment that would imply that government can derive power from it - to apply "reasonable restrictions", or used by the several states that wish to usurp the right to keep and bear arms from the people. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..." has no such grant of power in it, either.

The Second Amendment is the people telling those in government that if they wish for we the people to back them up in their service to the people, to leave our arms alone and don't tell us when and where we may or may not carry them.

For those of you who think I'm reaching too far, and believe that this "revision" to the NICS is a step in the right direction, I have to point out something to you. This law is still on the books. It will become more complicated. We will be thrown a bone with the "updating" provisions, but the original restrictions are still there. We will be subject to more infringement of our right with the inclusion of further reaching records that will be added to the NICS. This Act will not remove one unconstitutional restriction. We will have gained effectively nothing. The anti-rights crowd gains hundreds of thousands of potential gun owners added to their list of who may not own a gun. We might gain a few thousand on our side - after all those who wish to be "reclassified" jump through a bunch of hoops and lay their case in the lap of uncaring bureaucrats. You'll notice that these people who can be dropped from the restricted lists aren't simply dropped. The anti-rights crowd loses nothing.

This is bad law. Just as bad as the original Brady Act.

As to the cost of keeping the violent criminals locked up, they can earn their keep. The Thirteenth Amendment makes an exception for the duly convicted to be held in servitude. That'll cost less than the NICS. It could potentially make money for the several states and the Union. I imagine a majority of the mentally deranged can earn their keep as well.

Trust me, all these restrictions on our rights are not there to control the bad elements in our society, they are there to control us, the law abiding. There is a better way, a cheaper way, yet those in government refuse to implement it - because it'll mean removing restrictions on the law abiding and a loss of a hold those in government have on you and me.

Maybe we should learn a lesson from the criminal elements in this country. They exercise far more freedom than we the law abiding do. They go out and get arms regardless of the unconstitutional law. We abide it. They carry anywhere they damned well please. We adhere to the restrictions. The only thing we have over the criminals - and this is important - is that we do not misuse our arms. Throw out the unconstitutional law, and there is no difference between the criminals and the law abiding when it comes to the keeping and bearing of arms. We don't part company until it comes to the use or misuse of our arms. That is where the only criminal action comes into play, and that criminal action is what should determine whether or not a criminal stays in prison, gets executed, or can be released after a time and considered trustworthy with arms. After release from prison, each ex-con is no longer under the protection of the state and must rely on himself for his defense - just like the rest of us do.

Woody

A law that says you cannot fire your gun in the middle of downtown unless in self defense is not unconstitutional. Laws that prohibit brandishing except in self defense or handling your gun in a threatening or unsafe manner would not be unconstitutional. Laws can be written that govern some of the uses of guns. No law can be written that infringes upon buying, keeping, storing, carrying, limiting caliber, limiting capacity, limiting quantity, limiting action, or any other act that would infringe upon the keeping or bearing of arms. That is the truth and simple reality of the limits placed upon government by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. B.E.Wood

obxned
June 17, 2007, 01:22 AM
Yeah, you were expecting something better???

gc70
June 17, 2007, 01:31 AM
I'm about the defeat of those who intentionally subvert the purpose of, misconstrue, and over-analyze; and then misdirect the purpose of the Second Amendment, and to what the Second Amendment directs its dictate.

The next elections are in 17 months.

stellarpod
June 17, 2007, 10:02 AM
Woodcdi states:

I'm not about "converting non-believers" or winning over "fence sitters". I'm about the defeat of those who intentionally subvert the purpose of, misconstrue, and over-analyze; and then misdirect the purpose of the Second Amendment, and to what the Second Amendment directs its dictate.

In the first sentence you tell us that you don't care about converting non-believers or winning over fence sitters. Yet, you then go on to state that you are "about the defeat of those who intentionally subvert the purpose of, misconstrue, and over-analyze...". I would respectfully suggest that you, as an individual residing in this republic, cannot defeat anyone by yourself. A majority of like-minded people voting to banish those you despise is the only method of removing them from positions of influence, short of armed insurrection.

By definition this requires, dare I say obligates you to try to convert all that you can. That is, unless you have decided that you'd rather subvert the process and move directly to the aforementioned armed insurrection. You seem like a logically-thinking person. Surely you're not suggesting such?

The irony here is that we by-in-large all agree with the fundamental tenants put forth in the 2nd Amendment. Do you really think we do justice to our position and forward that basic tenant when we allow ourselves to be splintered into so many factions? Our group is beginning to feel more like a Democratic Convention than a united front.

stellarpod

yokel
June 17, 2007, 11:19 AM
I'm not looking for "Pie in the Sky"

Be at ease, that was merely intended as some good-natured ribbing.

It goes without saying that the current state of affairs deeply rankles us all, however, for the time being i'm inclined to agree with the previous poster that the armed revolt scenarios ought to be left to Second Amendment Walter Mitty types.

ConstitutionCowboy
June 17, 2007, 11:48 AM
The irony here is that we by-in-large all agree with the fundamental tenants put forth in the 2nd Amendment. Do you really think we do justice to our position and forward that basic tenant when we allow ourselves to be splintered into so many factions? Our group is beginning to feel more like a Democratic Convention than a united front.

We're not splintered if we are all of the same mind with the basic tenants of the second Amendment. Just how are we splintered? What, it the ways we choose to fight the injustices foisted upon us by those who have subverted and/or ignored the Second Amendment? Just because we all don't agree on how to best fight the injustice and we don't all agree whether we should convince the non-believers, tip the fence sitters, or convert or defeat the antis at any one particular time doesn't necessarily mean we are splintered. It means we've go all the bases covered!

Sure, we all engage in all aspects of this fight to unfetter our rights from time to time - just like the anti-rights crowd - so that we might meet them head-to-head wherever and whenever they raise their ugly heads. The point is we fight the same cause. Those who are adept at schmoozing, schmooze. Those adept at pointing out fact, point out fact. The realists get real. The dreamers tell us tales of how it could be and inspire us. The doom-and-gloom "government-is-out-to-get-you" among us tell us how bad it could be and inspire diligence.

So, on we fight, each in his own way or united when it's best, but onward nonetheless. If we leave no stone unturned, and join hands to roll the boulders out of our way, we will win. Just don't ignore those stones they throw, or just lob across the floor like HR2640 - all painted up pretty with its florid prose and euphoric promises of safety and reduced crime - because you'll stub your toes on them. Toss 'em back and tell them "No go! Unfetter the Right instead and watch how fast things improve!".

Woody

"I pledge allegiance to the rights that made and keep me free. I will preserve and defend those rights for all who live in this Union, founded on the belief and principles that those rights are inalienable and essential to the pursuit and preservation of life, liberty, and happiness." B.E.Wood

ConstitutionCowboy
June 17, 2007, 12:04 PM
Be at ease, that was merely intended as some good-natured ribbing.

I gathered that. Thats why I didn't take offense or flame you for it.

It goes without saying that the current state of affairs deeply rankles us all, however, for the time being I'm inclined to agree with the previous poster that the armed revolt scenarios ought to be left to Second Amendment Walter Mitty types.

I'm not advocating armed insurrection either. I am willing to take my stand against confiscation, though. That said, armed insurrection - or better said the armed removal from office of those who attempt to disarm us - is not off the table. 'Till then, we espouse, support those who would unfetter our rights in Congress, and vote likewise. We can still win this without the cartridge box being opened - just as soon as Congress is populated with the right people - or of the mind that we'll put up with no more smoke and mirrors - just as soon as Congress realizes that the Constitution did not emanate from a bovine sphincter and that it actually means what it says!

Woody

"It is up to We the People to decide if and when we shall revolt. It is not up to those in government to prevent it. It is up to those in government to see that revolution never becomes necessary." B.E.Wood

yokel
June 17, 2007, 01:26 PM
I'm not advocating armed insurrection either. I am willing to take my stand against confiscation, though. That said, armed insurrection - or better said the armed removal from office of those who attempt to disarm us - is not off the table.

I'm not asserting that it isn't within the realm of possibility. Note that I mentioned "for the time being".

After all, it's hardly a secret what the last line of defense against some Hugo Chávez wannabe is.

ConstitutionCowboy
June 17, 2007, 01:50 PM
Roger that, yokel!

See? We're not all that far apart, are we. We are of the single mind that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is the insurance of freedom, and that the right must be unfettered, and that the Second Amendment must be honored just as those parts of the Constitution that provide for electing,appointing and approving our government officials are honored. There is no severability clause in the Constitution.

Woody

Be careful who you choose to stand behind and support. If you are unwilling to take care of yourself, you must take what comes along. I've yet to see a flock of sheep, no matter how well cared for and tended, that doesn't get fleeced from time to time and eventually end up on the dinner table. Not many sheep die a natural death. B.E. Wood

If you enjoyed reading about "New NICS Law No Better Than Old Law" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!